great news!ggait wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:17 pmI'm sure the folks at Columbia are quite familiar with the experience their friends at Brown have had on this (including going all the way up to SCOTUS). Per Brown's settlement agreement (still in effect fyi), Brown must:ask them to detail where in the law you would be violating title ix. there will not be anything comparable in past rulings to an institution like columbia that has provided so many opportunities for women. adding mens lax would not be violating the law in any way, shape or form. another womens sport would not be necessary at all, you're proportional with the male population you have.
"insure that the percentage of athletes who are women is no more than 3.5 percentage points lower than the percentage of women enrolled. If Brown eliminates or downgrades women's teams, or improves men's sports without doing the same for women, it would be required to keep its sports participation rate within 2.25 percent of enrollment."
If you add 45 mlax heads to Columbia's current portfolio of sports, the pro forma would be 57.5% male athletes (up from 55.5%) versus 53.9% male undergrads. That's a gap of 3.6%, and the Brown settlement (a pretty good on point precedent if you ask me) limits the gap to 2.25%.
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/24/spor ... -suit.html
so you are saying that in a year or 2, they could have 12 fewer male t&f participants, 9 fewer football, and 6 fewer rowing, and be able to add 40 lacrosse players without adding a woman's sport. and it's in the precedent.
right?